Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 484 (ORI)

NARAHARI LENKA v. STATE OF ORISSA

2008-06-27

A.K.PARICHHA

body2008
JUDGMENT : A.K. Parichha, J. - Copy of the petition has been received by the Learned Counsel for the State. On the consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission. 2. Heard. 3. The Petitioners, who have been arrayed as accused in S.T. Case No. 108/ 838 of 2004 in the Court of learned C.J.M.-cum-Asst. Sessions Judge, Kendrapara for offence under Sections 323, 436 and 34, I.P.C., have filed this petition to quash the order dated 12.5.2008 passed by the said Court rejecting the prayer of the Petitioner for recall of I.O.-P.W. 15 for further cross-examination. 4. Learned Counsel for The Petitioners states that inadvertently during the cross examination of P.W. 15 some contradiction in the evidence of P.W. 16 could not be confronted and in order to confront the contradictions brought out in the statement 0.1 P.W. 16, it was essential for further cross-examination of I.O.-P.W. 15. He states that for the sake of justice, the order dated 12.5.2008 be quashed and direction be given to recall I.O.-P.W. 15 for further cross-examination by The Petitioners. 5. Learned Counsel for the State supports the impugned order and opposes the prayer indicating that P.W. 15 was recalled and exhaustive cross-examination was permitted to The Petitioners. 6. It appears from Annexure-1, the petition filed on 6.5.2008, that The Petitioners mentioned the questions which The Petitioners want to put to the 1.0. All these questions relate to confrontation of the contradictions, which were brought out during the cross-examination of P.W. 16, who is an eye witness to the occurrence. From the certified copy of the statement of P.W. 15, it appears that contradictions available in the statement of all other witnesses were put to the I.O. except that of P.W. 16. So the plea of The Petitioners that it was an inadvertent omission of the part of the conducting counsel appears believable. Section 311, Criminal Procedure Code gives wide power to the Trial Court to recall any witness for further cross-examination, if it appears that further examination of such witness will help the Court in proper adjudication of the case. Since P.W. 16 is an eye-witness and some contradictions have been brought out in her cross-examination, it is necessary to put those contradictions to the I.O. as otherwise such contradictions cannot be used in evidence. Since P.W. 16 is an eye-witness and some contradictions have been brought out in her cross-examination, it is necessary to put those contradictions to the I.O. as otherwise such contradictions cannot be used in evidence. In other words, further cross-examination of P.W. 15 will help the Trial Court for proper and better adjudication of the case. 7. For the above noted reasons, the impugned order is set aside and the learned Trial Court is directed to recall P.W. 15 for further cross-examination by The Petitioners. It is, however, made clear that The Petitioners will not be permitted to put any other questions except the questions noted in the petition dated 6.5.2008. They will not be permitted to reopen the defence case and claim for adducing further defence evidence. The cost of P.W. 15 for his appearance in the Court as adjudged by the Trial Court will be borne by The Petitioners. 8. The CRLMC is disposed of. 9. UCC be granted on proper application. 10. The CRLMC is disposed of.